9009 W MALL DR 2018-01-02 MF Import

..y'C t�" '��' l=l Cs7 > � !A i y H �H7�tl "��H� CA H Ci1 O � H t7 OH c�n i�o zH�y.y t HH g �' oqC� �m� zyv, HOfn o ��C��d� D ` � � U u JUL 1 7 1989 �1Uo� C�J l7I G ll �.; r . ................................................. UTY Or EVERETT Nuol�c W�rks Deat. BOARD Op AU7ASTMENT FiNDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER VARIANCE NO. 13-89 Based upor th� written request for a variance from the City's zoning code by: Alan Johnson/Jerry Solie 1615 S.E. Everett Mall W Everett, WA 98208 hereinafter referred to as "Applicant,".for a variance From E.M.C. 19.42.020, Fences, to allow an eight foot high fence along the north (side) property line instead of the six foot height allowed by cone in the side yard and a six foot high fence along the west (front) property line :.nstead of the forty-two inch height allowed by code in the front yard of a proposed 381 unit apartment complex. on the following described property: See Attachment A Commonly known as: East of West Mall Drive (PUD right of way) and north of 92nd St. S.E. The Board ef Adjustment, followinq a public hearing on said ap- plication hsld on July 10, 1989, and further having reviewed all testimony, makes the following Findings, Conclusions and order: �� .� .. ._�„ That there ha�e Leen exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property or �.s to the in- tended use thereof that do not apply generally :o other proper- ties in the same vicinity or zone. a. Find;nv: The Applicant is proposing to construct a 381 unit apartment complex on a 13.28 acre site north of TOPS Foods and west cf West Mall Drive (the PUD Right of Way). Prior. to the public hearing before the City Council on the project, the applicant's representative met with residents of the mobile home park locat�d north of the site. During those.meetings, the residents expressed their desire to have an eight foot fence along the northern property line and a six foot fence along the west�rn bor- der extended to the access point for the apart- ments and aleng the eastern boundary. b. Con >> ion• The extraordinary circumstances in this case is the desire to provide additional screeniny and security measures between the mobile home �ark a.^.d the apartment complex. �L]��e�i.on No. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoy- ment of a substantial property right of the appellant possessed b}� the owners of other properties in the same vicinity or zone. a. Findina: Other property owners of similar type projects have been able to satisfy the need for screening and security from adjacent single family uses by providing fencing and landscaping within City code requirements. Granting this variance woulcl allow the property uwner to satisfy the desire